Archives for December 2012

Fashion has so much to offer when we are able to stand back and assess it from a place where we are not seduced by the celebrities who wear it, the fashion editors who write poetically about it and the ad agencies who convince us we cannot live without it. Fashion is exquisite at its best. But what happens when fashion runs amuck?
After the Fall 2012 fashion shows in New York it seemed as though you could not read a single fashion show review without feeling the urge to run out and buy a sheer see-through dress. Sheer can be sexy, elegant and provocative and then it can also be a bad idea. Who can forget Marc Jacobs at the Metropolitan Museum’s Gala wearing a black lace dress that was accented by a pair of white boxer shorts? Marc looked neither sexy, elegant nor provocative—instead the sight of him evoked a desire to look away just as if I had walked in on someone changing his underwear.
2012 was definitely the year of the high heel. I love my high heels and if it has a platform even better but when the heel and platform height can result in a trip to the ER or make me look like a pole dancer then count me out. The height of heels and platforms got crazy-stupid this year. The good news is what goes up must come down. My prediction is these skyscraper heels will be yesterday’s fashion news in 2013.
You would have to live in a far-away place not to know that leggings are the biggest fashion trend since big shoulder pads. Leggings are great, they are easy to wear and always fit, thanks to all that lycra. But there is a problem with this ubiquitous trend. Leggings are stockings not trousers. However, they are worn like trousers. Much like wearing a bra as outer wear, wearing leggings as trousers is a problem for most. Ask yourself this before you decide to put leggings on with your stiletto boots and silky hip-length top, “Is my body so fabulous that I could walk down the street naked?” If the answer is a resounding, “No,” then put on a pair of real pants.
2012 also brought us some great looks as well. . .the slim pant is one. Not to be confused with the skinny pant that hugs tightly everywhere on your leg, the slim pant falls gracefully from the waist lengthening your silhouette. Capes and sleek poncho’s made a welcomed appearance on the streets. The classic pump is back but this time without the extreme pointy toe from ten years ago. The tailored dress has been a crowd pleaser for years now and is still going strong. Remember, you can never go wrong with the classics.

The peak of the holiday season is so close we can hear it screeching around the corner. There were all kinds of warnings that the holidays with their bright lights and lively carols were fast approaching as far back as September. We have been here before, promising ourselves we would not wait until the last minute to shop, send cards and trim down a bit to fit into that cute little number we bought on sale last year to wear to this year’s parties. As well intentioned as we are much of our “to do” list has not been attended to. There is still time to shop, thanks to e-commerce, but we can forget about sending cards this year because we have no stamps and the thought of standing in line at the post office is making us dizzy. What about those pounds we were going to shake in order to slip into the dazzling cocktail dress we picked up at 50% off last year? The problem is not that we didn’t lose the weight. The problem is we bought a dress that did not fit because it was on sale.
There is nothing like a great sale. . .25, 50, 75% off! Sometimes it’s hard to resist buying something gorgeous at 75% off even when it is too small. You buy it thinking it will incentivize you to lose the weight.This is a bad idea—that stunning dress you picked up that was a size 8 when you were a size 10 will only be a reminder that you didn’t reach your goal and carrying all that guilt around during the holidays might send you to the dessert table drowning your sorrows in another brownie. You can stop the cycle by buying clothes that fit or are a little big and require some tailoring.
Let this be your shopping mantra:
I will buy only what I love whether it is $50 or $500 and I will never buy anything that is too tight which would require me to lose weight because I love myself, every inch.
Happy Holidays!

I am in awe of a lined jacket that retails at $79 or a pair of jeans with a price tag of $39. It is most likely because after over 20 years designing and manufacturing clothing I understand the math. Typically the material and labor cost of a garment are realized when you divide the price of your $22 shirt by 4. That number $5.50 reflects the cost of fabric, notions, cutting, sewing, freight, taxes and a few other odds and ends. I can’t begin to imagine producing a shirt for $22 because $5.50 would not even cover the cost of cutting a shirt for me. It is not really fair to compare the price of a shirt from Target and a shirt from Catherine Jane. Target orders thousands, I order 6.Target Top $21.99Catherine Jane Top $210
There was a fire in a clothing factory in Bangladesh on Nov 24, 2012 that killed 112 people. This fire was not the first. According to the International Labor Rights Forum there have been over 600 work related deaths in Bangladesh since 2005. In fact the problem of unsafe standards in developing countries is so prevalent that back in 2011 the executives from the Gap, Wal–Mart and other big retailers met to discuss and ultimately work out a strategy to fix the problem. A consideration was proposed to ensure fire safety and inspections to the factories at a cost of at least $500,000 per retailer over the course of two years. The amount of which would be made to the owners of the clothing manufacturing companies. This new contract would make the big retailers responsible for future factory fires. The meeting seemed to be moving along swimmingly until the second day of the meeting when the Director of Ethical Sourcing for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., said, “In most cases, very extensive and costly modifications would need to be undertaken to some factories…It is not financially feasible . . . to make such investments.” Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer with substantially over 400 billion in annual earnings said they couldn’t afford it! Apparently that was the end of the meeting and nothing was done. Here is some more math for you—if one company had “forked-over” the $500,000 to improve safety in this one factory, 112 lives would have been saved at the cost of $4,462.29 per life.
It is not just the major retailers who are responsible for the deaths of so many but it is also the responsibility of the consumer. Once there is no longer a demand for cheap clothing major retailers will move on. This is the rule of supply and demand–no demand, no supply.
Clothing manufacturing is sometimes done at the cost of lives. Not sure where to shop? Do the math.
Smart chicks know the math.